User talk:Captainmike/archive 1
Starship naming conventions :Welcome to the show, CaptainMike! Glad you can join us. Just one minor thing: I noticed you just created a new page for the USS Bradbury -- but you made it inconsistent with our previous conventions. I'm moving your page to USS Bradbury. But don't let this mistake discourage you -- it's completely understandable. I hope you'll stick around! -- MinutiaeMan 09:08, 13 Jan 2004 (PST) Wiki markup :Hi, CaptainMike. I saw you changing formatting from Wiki-style to HTML-code in several articles, although the Wiki-style seems to be the preferred way. Also, there's an existing article at Earth (instead of Terra). Otherwise, good work. :) -- Cid Highwind 02:38, 14 Jan 2004 (PST) Wait til I finish the article before calling it an orphan! :Hi. I added a link to the article you recently created (nacelle) on Warp drive. Please avoid creating pages that can't be accessed from anywhere else. -- Cid Highwind 17:31, 9 May 2004 (CEST) ::I created it so that people could link to it, i don't see what the problem is. --Captainmike 21:05, 9 May 2004 (CEST) ::The "problem" here is the fact that an orphaned page can only be found by a direct search, which is a relatively complicated way to access it. If an article is important enough to exist at all, there should be at least one other article that references it. As explained on Memory Alpha:Build the web, it is important to consider the place in the link web of any article you write. -- Cid Highwind 22:53, 9 May 2004 (CEST) :::I'm aware of the policies and unlinked status of my article, but I assure you I don't write articles to orphan them. I keep careful track of the status of my past contributions and wouldn't allow them to end up so, but this process takes time and I'm not going to avoid contributing simply because an article doesn't go anywhere yet--I'm counting on myself or someone like you going back and linking it. Thanks for getting to it before I did. --Captainmike 01:27, 10 May 2004 (CEST) Picture discussion runoff :Would be better to delete the picture of the Pheonix, since we do not know for sure, how the USS Nebula really looked like. ::Would be better to go to Talk:USS Nebula --Captain Mike ? :Jupiter picture has copyright-info.all the others are screecaps like 80% of all images at memory alpha without copyright-info. - User:BlueMars edit conflicts :Sorry for that... i'm goin' to bed now, don't expect any further disturbances from me for the next 10 hours ;-) - User:BlueMars ::Regarding those conflicts, you might want to use instead of creating another one. -- Cid Highwind 01:31, 28 May 2004 (CEST) :::Thanks Cid.. i was panicking trying to remember those five letters, i'll use 'inuse' next time.--Captainmike 01:33, 28 May 2004 (CEST) ::No problem, each time I want to look up one of those, I need about 5 minutes to remember this title: Memory Alpha:MediaWiki custom messages. Should be linked from the main page, I guess. -- Cid Highwind 01:37, 28 May 2004 (CEST) Re:Notes on the Creation of a META-TREK article It should be noted that these notes are not official MA policy. If you want them to be, it would be best if you could suggest them on the talk page of the concerned policy. I disagree with some of these suggestions: it seems unnecessary to indent/italicize text that appears in separate Background information sections - I also think that these sections should not contain personal speculation. Also, the use of is still being discussed... -- Cid Highwind 18:18, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) :correct on the Background tag, i dont really mean to suggest we indent those. :On the personal speculation point, I'm illustrating a format guide, not advocating content choices. Double back and you might not miss the point on the next pass. :http://captainmike.org/Avatar/avatar_thumbsup01.gif K THX --Captainmike 18:34, 6 Jun 2004 (CEST) Usage of 'Pages for immediate deletion' It would be nice if you could remove all links to a page (especially REDIRECT pages, change links to that page to the redirect target) before suggesting them for immediate deletion. Thanks, Cid Highwind 19:16, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::That's what I have been doing all night. Unless I missed one, someone must've written a link back to it. Thanks for mopping up --Captain Mike K. Bartel 19:21, 13 Jun 2004 (CEST) Question for you Why have you been changing Doctor to Doctor and suchforth recently? Was there a discussion somewhere I'm not aware of that means we shouldn't be linking to that page? -- Avron 05:48, 20 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I'm starting to think that an article on a general word like "doctor" would be extraneous, unless there is anything specific we need to say about the state of medicine or education in the future, the article would be a straightforward definition of the word, with no context or Trek related data. I think we should hold off linking unless someone devises meaningfulo content for such a page --Captain Mike K. Bartel Nomination for admin position Hey Mike, just thought I'd drop you a quick line to let you know I nominated you for an administrator position. Head on over to nominations for administratorship and let us know if you're interested or not! :-) -- Dan Carlson 20:53, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) Congratulations on your nomination! You deserve it! -- Redge 01:29, 24 Jul 2004 (CEST) :Thanx! I'm wondering if it's going to die? I hope it doesn't expire simply because there's not as many registered users on lately! -- Captain Mike K. Bartel ::I know what you mean. Maybe nomination time should be extended untill more people are back. -- Redge 14:15, 24 Jul 2004 (CEST) Votes for Deletion I'm not sure where this sudden hostility is coming from regarding my desire to keep Yeager class. You seem to be railing at me for a larger issue, and your tone of posting is coming across to me as extremely hostile, which I don't think I or the article deserve. -- Michael Warren 16:50, 28 Jul 2004 (CEST) :I'm not trying to create dissent here Mike, I just didn't believe you were getting the big picture of what I think keeping the Yeager-class article would mean.. I don't like the Yeager-class designation, I'd prefer that we avoid speculating that this could be the name of the class when theres a decent possibility that it is not. I've made some changes, but we should discuss this further. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel Officer Capitalization You seem quite bussy replacing the officers' titles, like "Chief Tactical Officer" into "chief tactical officer", removing the capitalization. Why is that? Ottens 12:26, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST) :well, naming conventions generally recommends going lowercase with regular nouns, reserving uppercase for proper nouns.. the only time, in American English, that "chief tactical officer" would be capitalized would be if it were a title before a persons name "Chief Tactical Officer O'Brien" for example, and "O'Brien was the chief tactical officer" is the example of it used elsewhere in a sentence. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 13:19, 30 Jul 2004 (CEST) References I just noticed that you've included a few links in the references section of Violations that shouldn't have been according to the Memory Alpha:Template for Episode (i.e. the list of items referenced in the episode but not already mentioned in the summary or character list). Has this policy changed without the template being updated? -- Avron 06:25, 17 Aug 2004 (CEST) :I just bulk copied the list. When an episode summary is written is when I usually remove the links (i.e. i wait til the article is mostly finished, then i remove the double links, since its a pain to go up and check which ones are listed/linked already).. i don't mind if any user goes through and fixes those for me (although i think the word should remain in the references list, in an unlinked form..) I don't want the individual terms to remain unlinked, since it could be a while until the other sections are complete in episode articles. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 07:08, 17 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::That makes sense then. I'll follow your lead and leave it (and others like it) alone until a more complete article is written. -- Avron 07:19, 17 Aug 2004 (CEST) References on 'Dagger of the Mind' You and Redge seem to have a difference of opinion about the proper format for links in the references section of this page. Initially, I removed all links that appeared as free links elsewhere, since that is my interpretation of the section Memory Alpha:Manual of Style (See also and related topics). I'd like to know who's right here, so I do it right in the future. Thanks. - Balok 02:27, 26 Aug 2004 (CEST) Why move Klingon Bird-of-Prey? See above. :) Just curious as to why, as the use of Bird-of-Prey here is as a proper noun, therefore it should be capitalised. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 20:08, Aug 30, 2004 (CEST) :I was thinking it was a "ship type" like cruiser or frigate, lower case as nouns. However, I suppose it could be construed that "Bird of Prey" is a model designation, and therefor proper, however I can't remember any other ship descriptors being made into proper nouns (except class names themselves). -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 20:52, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::It may be a ship classification, but it is also a ship class. Yeah, I mean we occasionally get the odd B'Rel and K'Vort sneak in, but the vessel is almost constantly called a BoP (like, for example, the Saratoga and the Reliant can be called "a pair of Mirandas"). Incidentally, the K'Vort is referred to as a 'battlecruiser' in "Yesterday's Enterprise". I would imagine that Warbird would hold the same status, as that is the identifier frequently used to describe the D'Deridex (of course, that is complicated by the description of the Valdore type as a Warbird). I'll revert the move now. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 21:09, Aug 30, 2004 (CEST) :Well i suppose in the heirarchy of ship classification, there is an additional "genus" if you will, this kind of model number. The individual class name is always a proper noun (Excelsior-class or Vor'cha-class) and is the most specific. What I call the model is what we have here. This is "Bird-of-Prey," "D7," and the like. Then, the least specific is type, which is cruiser or frigate, etc. :I suppose there is some call to consider it a proper name, and as such capitalized. I'd have no argument with your stance it should remain capitalized. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 21:22, 30 Aug 2004 (CEST)